A Lifeline to High-Speed Internet Access: An Economic Analysis of Administrative Costs and the Impact on Consumers Nicol E. Turner-Lee, Ph.D. Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council Coleman Bazelon, Ph.D. The Brattle Group, Inc. Olga Ukhaneva, Ph.D. Center for Business and Public Policy, Georgetown University DeVan Hankerson, MPP Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council RECOMMENDED CITATION: Turner-Lee, N., Bazelon, C., Ukhaneva, O., & Hankerson, D. (2016). Lifeline to High Speed-Internet Access: An Economic Analysis of Administrative Costs and The Impact on Consumers (White Paper) (pp. 1–23). Washington, DC: Multicultural Media Internet and Telecom Council (MMTC). Retrieved from http://mmtconline/WhitePapers/March2016-Lifeline-Analysis- Consumer-Impact.pdf FOR MEDIA OR OTHER INQUIRIES: Nicol Turner-Lee, Senior Researcher, Vice President and Chief Research & Policy Officer, MMTC DeVan Hankerson, Associate Researcher, Director of Research, MMTC Marcella Gadson, Communications Director, MMTC (202) 332-0500 www.mmtconline.org
23
Embed
A Lifeline to High-Speed Internet Access: An Economic ......2016/02/22 · A Lifeline to High-Speed Internet Access: An Economic Analysis of Administrative Costs and the Impact on
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
A Lifeline to High-Speed Internet Access: An Economic Analysis of Administrative Costs and the Impact on Consumers
Nicol E. Turner-Lee, Ph.D. Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council Coleman Bazelon, Ph.D. The Brattle Group, Inc. Olga Ukhaneva, Ph.D. Center for Business and Public Policy, Georgetown University DeVan Hankerson, MPP Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council
RECOMMENDED CITATION: Turner-Lee, N., Bazelon, C., Ukhaneva, O., & Hankerson, D. (2016). Lifeline to High Speed-Internet Access: An Economic Analysis of Administrative Costs and The Impact on Consumers (White Paper) (pp. 1–23). Washington, DC: Multicultural Media Internet and Telecom Council (MMTC). Retrieved from http://mmtconline/WhitePapers/March2016-Lifeline-Analysis-Consumer-Impact.pdf
FOR MEDIA OR OTHER INQUIRIES:
Nicol Turner-Lee, Senior Researcher, Vice President and Chief Research & Policy Officer, MMTC DeVan Hankerson, Associate Researcher, Director of Research, MMTC Marcella Gadson, Communications Director, MMTC (202) 332-0500
I. Introduction.........................................................................................................................................................8
II. BroadbandInternetAccessIsCriticaltoSuccessintheModernEconomy............................9
III. InefficienciesintheCurrentLifelineProgramCallforFundamentalReform.....................9
IV. CentralizingLifelineProgramAdministrationwithaGovernmentEntityWillYieldCost
V. Conclusion........................................................................................................................................................17
PREFACE As the critical issue of Lifeline reform is debated by the Federal Communications Commission, the Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council (MMTC) is pleased to share our new report, “A Lifeline to High-Speed Internet Access: An Economic Analysis of Administrative Costs and the Impact on Consumers,” prepared by MMTC with distinguished economic analysis from The Brattle Group and Georgetown University’s Center for Business and Public Policy. This report endorses the inclusion of broadband as an eligible service for Lifeline consumers. Further, it considers the impact of modernization on competition and consumer choice. In 1985, the Lifeline program was created to provide low-income Americans with the opportunity to connect to wired telephone service, an essential 20th century communications tool that millions would otherwise have been unable to afford. Twenty years later, the Federal Communications Commission recognized the rise of mobile technology as the new essential communications tool and wisely modified the Lifeline program in 2005 to include access to wireless cellular service. Today, we have the opportunity to modernize Lifeline once more to keep pace with the ever-changing technologies that have become essential for economic empowerment, personal advancement, and full engagement in the digital economy. Our report maintains that Lifeline must be reformed to include broadband as soon as it is practicable if the program is to remain relevant to our digital future. Moreover, it must be reformed in a fiscally responsible manner. A more competitive and efficient Lifeline program will, in turn, significantly benefit low-income consumers and empower them in their journey towards economic self-sufficiency. More than thirty-one million Americans do not have access to the Internet today. They live in rural America, on Native American tribal lands, and in urban cities; they are young, old, multicultural, and they overwhelmingly live below or near the poverty line. We cannot afford to leave millions of Americans behind as we embrace this digital age. We need them, and they need us to create a modern, viable Lifeline program. MMTC has worked for thirty years to ensure that every American has access to opportunity in the digital age. We have the technology and we have the duty to connect every American to the digital future. Now, we need only exercise our will to make this a reality. Our goal is that this report will contribute to discussion and ultimately action, resulting in a more efficient and effective Lifeline program serving even more Americans. Kim M. Keenan,
President and CEO Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council
The Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) Lifeline program, established
in 1985, is in desperate need of modernization. Extending Lifeline beyond the current
voice telephone-only benefit, to include high-speed broadband, is essential to ensure first
class, digital citizenship for America’s low-income consumers. But reforms must be
done in a fiscally responsible manner that facilitates support for high-speed broadband
and transforms Lifeline into a more competitive and efficient program that truly benefits
eligible, low-income consumers. Successfully modernizing the program will mean
addressing hidden, excessive administrative costs and program burdens by leveraging
synergies with existing government tools that are currently being used to administer other
public benefit programs.
The lack of transparency of the costs associated with Lifeline program
administration, along with our refreshed economic analysis of the FCC’s expected versus
actual costs, highlight the need to streamline operations and immediately eliminate the
role of service providers in certain processes, such as eligibility verification.
Consumers participating in the Lifeline program will benefit from the improved
streamlining of processes because it better respects their time, dignity, and privacy. Most
importantly, eligible consumers will be positively impacted by the net social dividends
arising from enhanced connectivity, such as access to health care and health-related
resources, educational information, and employment opportunities.
In 2015, Lifeline payments totaled $1.5 billion, funding support for voice
connections to approximately 13 million eligible consumers, and relatively modest
administrative costs incurred by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC).
Lifeline to High Speed-Internet Access: An Economic Analysis of Administrative Costs and The Impact on Consumers EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BY NICOL E. TURNER-LEE, PH.D., COLEMAN BAZELON, PH.D., OLGA UKHANEVA, PH.D., AND DEVAN HANKERSON, MPP
“Connectivity is a path to greater opportunity. In today’s world, broadband and fluency with technology fuel economic growth, provide access to the world’s knowledge, promote skill development, and build stronger and more connected communities.”
– The White House, March 9, 2016
The Federal Communication Commission’s Lifeline program, established in 1985,
is in desperate need of modernization. Moving forward with program reform is critical to
ensure that millions of vulnerable populations will attain first class, digital citizenship.1
Extending Lifeline beyond the current voice telephone-only benefit, to include
broadband,2 is essential to ensure access to 21st century networks for America’s low-
income consumers. Reforming the program’s administrative structure and shifting
responsibilities for program administration and determining consumer eligibility from
service providers to a more centralized government process will improve efficiencies,
reduce administrative costs, and enhance competition by attracting new service providers
into the program.
The Lifeline program currently provides a discount on voice service ($9.25 per
month, for most eligible consumers)3 for qualified low-income consumers to ensure their
access to emergency services as well as to connections with family and friends.
In 2015, Lifeline payments totaled $1.5 billion,4 funding support for voice
connections to approximately 13 million eligible consumers,5 and relatively modest
administrative costs incurred by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC).
USAC is the FCC’s entity designated to manage Lifeline and other federal Universal
Service Fund (USF) programs. Despite these impressive numbers, participation rates in
Lifeline have been historically low—less than 30 percent of eligible consumers enroll in
the program.6
This paper addresses why and how administrative efficiency should be included
in the effort to reform and improve the federal Lifeline program. This paper also
addresses why streamlining the enrollment and eligibility processes towards coordinated
enrollment with federally-managed programs, such as the U.S. Department of
1. Honig, D., & Turner-Lee, N. (2013). Refocusing Broadband Policy: The New Opportunity Agenda For People Of Color (pp. 1–30). Washington, DC: Minority Media & Telecom Council. Retrieved from http://mmtconline.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Refocusing-Broadband-Policy-112113.pdf
2. The term “broadband” is used here to describe access to high-speed Internet services.
3. Consumers living on Tribal lands are eligible for an additional Lifeline discount up to $25 per month.
4. According to the 2015 FCC Universal Service Monitoring Report administrative costs of USAC accounted for $20.02 million in 2015 (Table 1.11). Retrieved from the Federal and State Staff for the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service. (2015). Universal Service Monitoring Report (CC Docket No. 96-45; WC Docket No. 02-6; WC Docket No. 02-60;WC Docket No. 06-122;WC Docket No. 10-90; WC Docket No. 11-42; WC Docket No. 13-184; WC Docket No. 14-58) (Federal Joint Board Monitoring Reports). Washington, DC: Federal Communications Commission.
5. These data are retrieved from the FCC filings available at http://www.usac.org/about/tools/fcc/filings/2016/q2.aspx. Specifically, total Lifeline payments in 2015 are available in the table “LI06 Historical Data - Support Claimed by ETCs Each Month - January 1998 - December 2015.xlsx,” and total number of subscribers in 2015 is available in the table “LI08 Lifeline Subscribers by State or Jurisdiction - January 2015 through December 2015.xlsx.”
6. Consumers living on Tribal lands are eligible for an additional Lifeline discount up to $25 per month.
7. USAC reports that the participation rate in Lifeline was 27 percent in 2015. This statistics was retrieved from the Universal Service Administrative Company. (2016, November 15). Lifeline Program: Subscribers By Eligibility Program. USAC. Retrieved from http://usac.org/_res/documents/about/pdf/quarterly-stats/LI/Subscribers-by-Eligibility-Program.pdf
8. The U.S. Department of Agriculture administers the SNAP program that offers nutrition assistance to millions of eligible, low-income individuals and families and provides economic benefits to communities. The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) works with State agencies, nutrition educators, and neighborhood and faith-based organizations to ensure that those eligible for nutrition assistance can make informed decisions about applying for the program and can access benefits. FNS also works with State partners and the retail community to improve program administration and ensure program integrity.
9. Horrigan, J. B., & Duggan, M. (2013). Home Broadband 2015. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2015/12/Broadband-adoption-full.pdf (last visited February 22, 2016). See also, United States Census Bureau. (2014). American Community Survey (ACS) [Federal Agency Resource Site]. Retrieved February 22, 2016, from https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/
10. Horrigan, J. B., & Duggan, M. (2013). Home Broadband 2015.FCC Order, April 11 2008,
11. FCC Order March 5, 2009, FCC Order, CC Docket No. 96-45. Retrieved from http://www.usac.org/_res/documents/about/pdf/fcc-orders/FCC-USF-Orders-Lifeline.pdf. Even though TracFone, the first reseller to provide Lifeline, was granted forbearance from facilities requirements in 2005, it was designated as an ETC and started offering the Lifeline subsidy in 2008.
12. Veach, J. (2016, April 25). Hearing - “The Lifeline Fund: Is it Money Well Spent?”, Statement of Julie A. Veach Chief Wireline Competition Bureau Federal Communications Commission Before the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology Committee on Energy and Commerce U.S. House of Representatives. House Energy and Commerce Committee. Retrieved from https://energycommerce.house.gov/hearings-and-votes/hearings/lifeline-fund-money-well-spent
13. In the Matter of Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization, Lifeline and Link Up, Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service. Advancing Broadband Availability Through Digital Literacy Training., Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. (2012, February 6). Retrieved February 22, 2016, https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-11A1.pdf
14. Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization; Lifeline and Link Up; Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service; Advancing Broadband Availability Through Digital Literacy Training; Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. (2012, February 6). Retrieved February 22, 2016, from https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-11A1.pdf
15. Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization, Lifeline and Link Up, Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Advancing Broadband Availability Through Digital Literacy Training, Report and Order and Further Notice of
16. This conclusion is based on comparison of the administrative costs of the Lifeline service providers reported by the FCC and USAC’s administrative costs for Lifeline. Specifically, carriers’ administrative costs, which account for $614 million, are much higher than USAC’s administrative costs, which account to $20.02 million.
17. Supporting Statement. (2013, October 30). Retrieved February 22, 2016, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, & Office of Management and Budget. (2013, October 30). ICR Documents, Supporting Statement A. U.S. General Services Administration. Retrieved from http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/DownloadDocument?objectID=51157401. These costs do not include costs associated with the Lifeline Pilot program. USAC’s administrative costs are relatively small; they amount to $20.02 million and are not discussed in this paper.
18. In fact, average non-Tribal subsidy payments across states declined from $11.46 in 2011 to $9.32 in 2012. See Table 2.3 in 2012 FCC Monitoring Report and Table 2.4 in 2013 FCC Monitoring Report.
19. Here, we provide comparison of Lifeline administrative costs with SNAP administrative costs. The costs of SNAP administration account for only 6.1 percent of the program’s budget, which is much lower than Lifeline administrative costs.
20. See, e.g., US Telecom Ex Parte, Re Lifeline & Link Up Reform & Modernization, WC Docket No 11-42 (filed March 4, 2016)
21. Based on the estimated derived from the 2013 FCC Supporting Statement, annual eligibility recertification is still the largest expense category, which accounts for 67 percent of total administrative costs of Lifeline.
22. USAC reports that the participation rate in Lifeline was 27 percent in 2015. This statistics was retrieved from http://usac.org/_res/documents/about/pdf/quarterly-stats/LI/Subscribers-by-Eligibility-Program.pdf
23. FCC quarterly filings are available at http://www.usac.org/about/tools/fcc/filings/default.aspx
24. Number of parent companies is not available for 2015. According to the 2015 FCC Monitoring Report there were in total 824 parent companies in 2014 (see supplementary material).
25. See AT&T Ex Parte—Lifeline and Link-up Reform and Modernization WC Docket No. 1142 at 5 (filed December 21, 2015).
26. AT&T Inc. (2015, December 21). Ex Parte – Lifeline and Link-Up Reform and Modernization WC Docket No. 11-42. Ex Parte Letter. Retrieved from http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001389543.
27. See 2014 USAC annual report available at http://www.usac.org/_res/documents/about/pdf/annual-reports/usac-annual-report-2014.pdf.
28. NYU Stern Business School, & Damodaran, A. (2016, January). Cost of Capital by Sector (US) [Educational Institution, Research Site]. Retrieved from http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/wacc.htm
29. The amount of interest for one month was calculated by first computing interest for the whole year at 5.5 percent interest rate and then divided by 12 month, i.e. $550,510 = ($121,201,186*0.055)/12.
30. Mitchell, J. (2012). Smith Bagley, Inc, PR Wireless, & US Cellular. (2012, October). Lifeline Program: FCC’s Compliance Burden Estimates. Powerpoint presented at OMB, Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/DownloadDocument?objectID=51159201(last visited February 22, 2016).
31. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2014). May 2014 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates: NAICS 517100 - Wired Telecommunications Carriers [Federal Agency Database]. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_517100.htm. See also United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2014). May 2014 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates: NAICS 517200 - Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) [Federal Agency Database]. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_517200.htm#13-0000
32. Catherine Clifford, “Why a $14/hour employee costs $20,” from http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/26/smallbusiness/employee_costs/
33. Ibid.
34. Mitchell, J. (2012). Smith Bagley, Inc, PR Wireless, & US Cellular. (2012, October). Lifeline Program: FCC’s Compliance Burden Estimates. Powerpoint presented at the OMB, Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/DownloadDocument?objectID=51159201(last visited February 22, 2016). See also Joint Comments on OMB Review of Lifeline Requirements. Re: OMB Control Number: 3060-00819; WC Docket Nos. 12-23, 11-42, 03-109, CC Docket No. 96-45 (Joint Comments) (pp. 1–10). McLean, Virginia: Lukas, Nace Gutierrez & Sachs, LLP. Retrieved from http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/DownloadDocument?objectID=51159101. See also http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=201410-3060-011
35. Mark Burton, Jeffrey Macher, and John W. Mayo. "Understanding participation in social programs: Why don't households pick up the lifeline?." The BE Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy 7.1 (2007).
36. Some states have already implemented a version of coordinated enrollment of the Lifeline program. For example, in 2007, the state of Florida implemented coordinated enrollment processes between Lifeline service providers and the Department of Children and Families (DCF) that helps to confirm participation of Lifeline applicant for Medicaid, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and Temporary Cash Assistance (TANF) programs. Over 41 percent of all Lifeline-eligible households in Florida receive Lifeline assistance, which by far exceeded the national 27 percent Lifeline take-up rate at that time. More information on Florida’s coordinated enrollment process can be found in 2015 Florida Lifeline Assistance Report issued by Florida Public Service Commission available at http://www.psc.state.fl.us/Home/NewsLink?id=1342
37. According to USAC, 38% of Lifeline beneficiaries qualify based on participation in SNAP. USAC statistics is available at http://usac.org/_res/documents/about/pdf/quarterly-stats/LI/Subscribers-by-Eligibility-Program.pdf
38. According to the report published by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) 92 percent of SNAP beneficiaries are households with income below poverty level. In addition, household’s income should be at or below 130 percent of poverty guidelines to qualify for SNAP. Lifeline targets households at or below 135 percent of poverty threshold, which includes all SNAP beneficiaries. The CBPP report is available at http://www.cbpp.org/research/policy-basics-introduction-to-the-supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap
39. United States Department of Agriculture. (2016, February 17). Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) - National Level Annual Summary: Participation and Costs, 1969-2015. USDA. Retrieved from http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/SNAPsummary.pdf
40. See more details at http://www.cbpp.org/research/snap-costs-declining-expected-to-fall-much-further.
41. See MMTC. (2015, May 11). Re: Lifeline Reform, WC Dockets 11-42 and 03-109. Letter. Retrieved from http://mmtconline.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Lifeline-Letter-051115-FINAL.pdf. See also Multicultural Media, Internet and Telecom Council. (2015). In the Matter of Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization; Telecommunications Carriers Eligible for Universal Service Support; Connect America Fund: Comments Of Asian Americans Advancing Justice (AAJC), Blacks In Government, League Of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), Multicultural Media, Telecom And Internet Council (MMTC), NAACP, National Association Of Neighborhoods, National Action Network, National Coalition On Black Civic Participation And Black Women’s Roundtable, National Council Of La
Raza, National Policy Alliance, National Puerto Rican Chamber Of Commerce, National Urban League, National Organization Of Black County Officials (NOBCO), Nobel Women, OCA-Asian Pacific American Advocates, And U.S. Black Chambers, Inc. (FCC Comments). Washington, DC: MMTC. Retrieved from http://www.mmtconline.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/COMMENTS-OF-LIFELINE-SUPPORTERS-v2.pdf
42. The lower bound of this estimate, 9 million, is derived under assumption that 41 percent of eligible households would participate in Lifeline, based on statistics in Florida where coordinated enrollment with three federal programs was implemented in 2007. Given a transition period, the lower bound would more likely be the current level of enrollment, 13 million. The upper bound of estimate is derived under assumption that take-up rate would be close to 100 percent.
43. Distribution of Lifeline benefit via EBT costs on average $1.05 per beneficiary per month. Under assumption that the number of Lifeline subscribers is likely to fall between 9 and 22 million of subscribers, the estimated costs of provision of benefits via EBT is between $9.5 and $23.1 million. Cost of distribution of payment via EBT is taken from the report of Government Accountability Institute “Profits from Poverty: How Food Stamps Benefit Corporations,” September 2012. Retrieved from http://www.g-a-i.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/GAI-Report-ProfitsfromPoverty-FINAL.pdf
Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge and appreciate the many suggestions and support offered by Maurita Coley and Marcella Gadson. About the Authors Nicol E. Turner-Lee, Ph.D., Vice President and Chief Research & Policy Officer, Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council Dr.NicolTurner-LeeisVicePresidentandChiefResearchandPolicyOfficerforMMTC.Inthisseniorrole,Dr.Turner-Leedirectsthepolicyandresearchagendaandworkswithcivilrights,government,industry,andotherstakeholderstostrategizeandoperationalizepolicypriorities.Sheholdsregulatory,legislative,andexecutiveofficeexperience,andhastestifiedbeforeCongressoncriticalmediaandtelecomissues.Inapriorrole,Dr.Turner-Leeauthoredthefirst“NationalMinorityBroadbandAdoptionStudy”thatwascitedintheFederalCommunicationsCommission’scongressionallymandatedNationalBroadbandPlanandworkedonnumerouspublicationsonarangeofotherissuesaddressingbroadbandandInternetpolicies,consumeronlineprivacy,spectrumpolicy,andbroadcast.AmbassadorDanielA.SepulvedarecentlyappointedDr.Turner-LeetotheU.S.StateDepartment’sAdvisoryCommitteeonInternationalCommunicationsandInformationPolicy(ACICIP).ShegraduatedwithhonorsfromColgateUniversityandhasaM.A.andPh.D.inSociologyfromNorthwesternUniversityandaCertificateinNonprofitManagementfromtheUniversityofIllinois-Chicago. Coleman Bazelon, Ph.D., Principal, The Brattle Group, Inc. Dr.Bazelonisanexpertinregulationandstrategyinthewireless,wireline,andvideosectors.Hehasconsultedandtestifiedonbehalfofclientsinnumeroustelecommunicationsmatters,rangingfromwirelesslicenseauctions,spectrummanagement,andcompetitionpolicy,topatentinfringement,wirelessreselling,andbroadbanddeployment.Dr.Bazelonfrequentlyadvisesregulatoryandlegislativebodies,includingtheU.S.FederalCommunicationsCommissionandtheU.S.Congress.Healsohasexpertiseinthefederalgovernment’suseofdiscountratesforpolicyandregulatoryanalysis,intellectualpropertyvaluation,andantitrustanddamagesanalysis.Olga Ukhaneva, Ph.D., Research Assistant Professor, Center for Business and Public Policy, Georgetown University OlgaUkhanevaisaResearchAssistantProfessorattheCenterforBusinessandPublicPolicyatGeorgetownUniversity.Herresearchinterestslieintheareasofappliedmicroeconomicsandempiricalindustrialorganization,includingregulationandantitrust,andtheapplicationofmicroeconomictheorytoregulation.Shestudiestopicsthatfocusonuniversalservicepoliciesandissuessurroundingthem,suchasevaluationofpolicychanges,cost-benefitanalysisofuniversalserviceprograms,anddevelopmentofthenewmeasuresoftelephoneaccess.ShereceivedaPh.D.inEconomicsfromGeorgetownUniversity,anM.A.inEconomicsfromNewEconomicSchool,andaB.S.inAppliedMathematicsfromMoscowStateUniversity.PriortohercurrentacademicplacementsheworkedasaSeniorStrategyConsultantatAnalysisGroupandIBM.DeVan Hankerson, MPP, Director of Research, Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council DeVanHankersonistheDirectorofResearchattheMulticulturalMedia,TelecomandInternetCouncil.Herissueportfolioincludesspectrumpolicy,consumerprivacy,emergencyalertsystems/NG911,wirelesstaxation,Internetpolicy,aswellasmediaandwirelessindustrymarketresearch.DeVanisanFCBAmemberandactiveinmanyresearchandregulatorypolicycirclesaddressingtechnologyissues.DeVanobtainedherM.A.inPublicPolicyfromMiddleburyCollege’sGraduateSchoolofInternationalPolicyandManagementandherB.A.inPsychologyandLinguisticsfromVassarCollege.